Jump to content

Clarification about Forum Rules for Posting about LL Personnel Changes


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 202 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

A post has recently been removed from the GD that noted the departure of a very well-known and beloved LL employee, and that included expressions of sorrow that said employee had left. I didn't see the initial justification for this, but have been told that it was said that the thread was "inappropriate" or something to that effect. One more concrete justification I've heard is that it linked to an external blog source that was in turn linked to the employee's RL information.

I'm not here to "complain" about the removal of the thread, per se, but I would like a clarification on the policy for posting in this context. Is it possible and permissible to post a "goodbye" thread to someone like this, assuming that it does not link to RL info, directly or indirectly?

Or is the policy in effect a ban on posting about ex-LL employees, even if only their SL identities are used?

It would be nice to post a goodbye to the person in question. He was frequently active on the forums in the old days, many residents have met him in-world, and he is pretty much universally loved and admired by those who've been around longer than a few years.

But I don't want to inadvertently violate forum rules by doing so, so a clarification would be helpful.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Don't try to multitask when posting, silly
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

One more concrete justification I've heard is that it linked to an external blog source that was in turn linked to the employee's RL information.

this would a reason for inappropriate I think

i don't see why posts in Missing Connections about inworld Torley Linden only would be inappropriate

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

this would a reason for inappropriate I think

i don't see why posts in Missing Connections about inworld Torley Linden only would be inappropriate

You may well be right, Molly, although were that the case, simply deleting the link to NWN would have done the trick.

I think a thread addressed to [said former employee, name redacted] would be a nice thing, for him, and for residents who knew and admired him. But I'm not going to try to start one until I am clear on the mods' policies on this. If there is anything in the TOS and CS addressing discussions of LL employees, I haven't seen it, but the forums are a somewhat different beast.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked in is a google indexed public site, everything posted on it is by profile owners. Anyone can google "NAME Linkedin". NWN did nothing wrong.

I assumed the thread (I started) had derailed in the night to the point the mods felt it was beyond saving. I received no message about why it had been removed.

Kinda scared to even post in this one now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it could have been derailed as well, as you say Coffee

derailed in the Linden is Bad way of posting. if so then that is something Torley would have not liked at all

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Ebbe on the Lab Gab it is LL's company policy NOT to discuss any hirings or firing of employees unless they OK it.   Outside links are often the reason for a thread being deleted. Not sure if this was the case this time. So typically I say something like Inara's blog instead of posting a link. Safer. I don't like getting my hand slapped. 

 

Edited by Chic Aeon
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To be clear, if it isn't already from the OP:

I am not asking for a "justification" for the removal of the thread. I don't care who reported it, and I don't care why. And, to be honest Beth, in the context of this thread and board anyway, I don't much care about your views on the matter.

What I am asking for is, from the mods, a clarification regarding forum policy here so that, as Coffee aptly puts it, we aren't "Kinda scared to even post" on this subject. When we don't know, or understand the rules governing the removal of certain kinds of posts, then that has a "freezing" effect on our willingness to talk about them.

I am assuming that this is a policy issue, and one that I've not heard of before. Derailed threads here are usually locked, not deleted. Intrusions into the privacy of people are clearly against the TOS and CS; they should be dealt with as such, of course, but the vast majority of the posts that I saw in that thread did nothing more than say nice things about this particular former employee.

If this represents the implementation of a policy regarding what we can and cannot post about, I'd like to know what that policy is. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I'll note, as well, that there is an entire thread elsewhere, and several posts, relating to another recently released LL employee. And that thread also links to NWN that includes the RL name of the employee in question. These have not been removed. That inconsistency creates uncertainty and, frankly, fear.

 

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Added link to existing thread discussing another LL employee, and clarifying that it too links to RL info
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarification would indeed be welcome. I can understand the thread being taken down, perhaps due to the LinkedIn info and I can see that certainly but there was nothing contentious in it that I saw- simply many warm wishes to a beloved Linden.

Edited by Kitten Kaos
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'll note, as well, that there is an entire thread elsewhere, and several posts, relating to another recently released LL employee. These have not been removed. That inconsistency creates uncertainty and, frankly, fear.

Since the thread that was removed apparently (I didn't see the thread) contained a link to an external site that reveales Torley's personal information and the one that remains contains no equivalent external link that reveals Kona's personal information, I know what inference I am inclined to draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Since the thread that was removed apparently (I didn't see the thread) contained a link to an external site that reveales Torley's personal information and the one that remains contains no equivalent external link that reveals Kona's personal information, I know what inference I am inclined to draw.

Actually, the NWN story linked to in the OP of the remaining thread actually gives the RL name of the employee in question.

I'm not seeing a difference.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Actually, the NWN story linked to in the OP of the remaining thread actually gives the RL name of the employee in question.

I'm not seeing a difference.

Has Kona's RL name been published somewhere on this forum without his explicit permission for it to be published here?   (I don't know -- that is, I don't know if it's been published here or, if it has, what Kona's views on the matter might have been).

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Has Kona's RL name been published somewhere on this forum without his explicit permission for it to be published here?   (I don't know -- that is, I don't know if it's been published here or, if it has, what Kona's views on the matter might have been).

I have no idea, Innula.

That seems to me a pretty convoluted way of determining what we are or are not permitted to post here. We need to do a thorough search of the forums for previous references to be sure we're not violating a rule that has not actually (that I know of) been articulated anywhere?

IF that is indeed the difference -- that one employee is "ok" with it, and the other isn't -- I don't see how we are to know that. We need a reasonably clear rule on this.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have no idea, Innula.

That seems to me a pretty convoluted way of determining what we are or are not permitted to post here. We need to do a thorough search of the forums for previous references to be sure we're not violating a rule that has not actually (that I know of) been articulated anywhere?

Seems simple enough to me.   A thread that contains a link to an external site revealing Torley's RL name is removed very promptly.    A thread that (as far as we know) contains no similar information about Kona is still going strong after however many weeks.    

Unless someone tells me I'm wrong, and points me to the equivalent post about Kona, then I'll assume that's the obvious difference between the two cases.   

I agree, though, it would certainly help to have official confirmation of the policy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there y'all!

We take the privacy of our employees and former employees very seriously, and we want to continue to respect that privacy even after they depart. I understand that this person in particular was very important to the community, and many of you may have thoughts and feelings you want to express, however the forums are not an appropriate avenue for such discussions.

You're more than welcome to discuss among yourselves through other avenues, such as in-world or privately, etc, but discussions on such topics on the forums may be subject to moderation out of respect for those being discussed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 202 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...